Halloween is traditionally a night of witches, ghosts, and monsters. But for environmentalists and their media allies, an even bigger scare is coming this Halloween: the birth of Earth’s 7 billionth resident.

On Oct. 31, 2011, world population will reach 7 billion, according to the United Nations. For many people, this milestone is a cause for celebration and a human triumph. But for environmentalists on the radical left, the ever-growing legion of consuming humans is a harbinger of impending doom. The Washington Post cautioned that “ecological distortions are becoming more pronounced and widespread.” Already the media are warning that population could more than double by 2100, according to a new UN report.

The media have long promoted overpopulation panic rampant among prominent voices in the environmentalist movement. James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia theory, fretted over too much economic success: “there are too many [people], doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” American biologist Paul Ehrlich made a series of fantastic predictions, including the claim: “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

(As of 2011, England still exists.) But as recently as 2010, the New York Times quoted Ehrlich as a “population expert.” And the Los Angeles Times favorably interviewed Ehrlich in February 2011.

Despite the failed predictions of Ehrlich and others, the phantom of overpopulation still haunts many on the left, and the media are happy to report every new terror. To thwart the environmentalist nightmare of too many people achieving economic success, such anti-population groups as The Population Institute, Population Connection, and Negative Population Growth lobby governments and philanthropic organizations (and more bizarrely, organize “condom campaigns”) to implement policies to “stabilize” or even reduce world population.

These groups are terrified by the specter of impending environmental disaster, and loathe humanity because of that fear. Negative Population Growth takes a particularly gloomy view of the human race: “More people means more pollution, more sprawl, less green space, and even more demands on the earth’s already overburdened resources.”

These groups echo radical environmentalists who see humanity as a plague. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, declared humans to be the “AIDS of the earth.” Yet Watson has his own TV show on Discovery. John Davis, editor of the Earth First! Journal, stated: “Human beings have no more value as species than slugs.”

Their fear-mongering is echoed by willing partners in the mainstream media. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman titled his July 7 column “The Earth is Full.” The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board titled a May 15 op-ed “Defusing the Population Bomb.” The Los Angeles Times also published a July 21 op-ed coauthored by Mary Ellen Harte and Anne Ehrlich (wife of Paul Ehrlich), which argued that “Perpetual [human population] growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.”

CNN has proven especially willing to promote overpopulation hysteria. In 2009, CNN’s Jack Cafferty warned of an “unsustainable” population of 9 billion and declared that “at some point there’s not going to be enough stuff for everybody.” Another 2009 CNN report highlighted two studies claiming that “money spent on contraception is about five times more efficient [in protecting the environment] than money spent on clean-energy technologies.” In November 2010, Joy Behar concurred with a guest who compared having a large family to “littering.”

CNN’s shilling for the anti-population lobby is not surprising, considering CNN founder Ted Turner’s unabashed support for the cause of population control. Turner, who has five children, has spoken favorably of China’s notorious one-child-per-family policy.

Left-wing media outlets are more hysterical in promoting the anti-population message. Mother Jones’ Julia Whitty composed a piece in 2010 with the conspiratorial subheading “What unites the Vatican, lefties, conservatives, environmentalists, and scientists in a conspiracy of silence? Population.” In August 2011, Daily Kos blogger Jon Stafford ranted: “This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but what we could really use is a global superplague.”

Panic over population growth is not a new phenomenon. Anglican clergyman and thinker Thomas Malthus, in 1798, called for extreme measures to reduce human population in his Essay on the Principle of Population (World population was below 1 billion in 1798.): “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.” American biologist Paul Ehrlich echoed Malthus in his 1968 work The Population Bomb, which warned of mass starvation and environmental catastrophe due to overpopulation. (World population was below 3.6 billion in 1968.)

But Ehrlich has refused to concede his predictions were wrong, and the media still quotes Ehrlich and raises the ghost of Malthus. On Oct. 17, economist and George Soros friend Jeffrey Sachs invoked Malthus in a piece bemoaning overpopulation on CNN.com. As recently as 2010, the New York Times quoted Ehrlich as a “population expert.”

From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

The American DreamOctober 27, 2011

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”. In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility. In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite. Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.

In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween. Perhaps they want to highlight how “scary” it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as “the festival of death”.

In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.

Today, “sustainable development” has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.

So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing “sustainable development”?

Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.

For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

Well ... did everyone know that the World population in the year 1800was around ONE BILLION? That isan estimated (but generally accepted)number because not all areas didactual censuses back then. A goodpercentage of those people (as Iremember, 35%) lived in the Asiancountries, and many others in 'unexplored' territories ... but still ...that is TWICE the number that theelite now rhapsodize about!

WTF? They want HALF the numberof people that were alive in 1800?

There was NO electricity anywhere in the world in 1800! No cars! No runningwater (at least for the masses)! Horsepoweronly! The richest among the masses livedlike the poorest among us today!

Logged

St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."

There was NO electricity anywhere in the world in 1800! No cars! No running water (at least for the masses)! Horsepower only! The richest among the masses lived like the poorest among us today!

Actually that's not true, because wealthy aristocrats had "servants" who tended to their every need. The poor, of course, do not.

I assure you that, if given a choice, none of those aristocrats would trade places with a modern-day wage slave, because for them the greatest horror of all would be having to actually "work" for a living.

In what was perhaps the biggest global birthday celebration in decades, our planet welcomed its seven billionth person. Although no one knew the exact time or day population totals would reach that count, the United Nations declared Monday, October 31 to be the expected date that would symbolically mark the occasion. Likewise, no one knew for sure who exactly the seven billionth person would be or where he or she would be born, so “7-billionth babies” all over the world were welcomed.

In the Philippines, Danica May Camacho was greeted to joyous ovation and was presented with a huge birthday cake with the inscription “7B Philippines.” Although she was born on Sunday at 11:58 pm, doctors at Manila’s Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital considered it within close enough proximity to be deemed a Monday birth.

Yet, not everyone extended a warm and hearty greeting to these newborns. Along with the festivities came words of caution from those berating our planet’s limited resources and supposed overpopulation crisis.

According to Dr. Eric Tayag of the Philippines’ Department of Health, “Seven billion is a number we should think about deeply. We should really focus on the question of whether there will be food, clean water, shelter, education and a decent life for every child. If the answer is ‘no,’ it would be better for people to look at easing this population explosion.”

In an interview with Russ Mitchell of CBS News, Joel Cohen, a demographer at Rockefeller University, added, “If we could slow our growth rate, we have an easier job in dealing with all the other things like education, health, employment, housing, food, the environment and so on.”

Finally, a recent Reuters article suggested, “One important policy tool to manage a growing population is to give women access to family planning, experts say, adding that 215 million women worldwide want it but do not get it. Access to education is also important as it motivates women to reduce their fertility and improve their children’s health.” According to Reuters, “resources are under more strain than ever before,” and a major concern is “how to provide basic necessities for the additional 2-3 billion people expected to be added in the next 50 years.”

While these warnings are espoused by seemingly reputable organizations and claim to be steeped in research, in reality, they are mere scare tactics designed to elevate environmentalism over human expansion. The phrases “giv[ing] women access to family planning” and “motivat[ing] women to reduce their fertility” are simply codes for easier access to contraception and elective abortion.

In his article, “Taking on the overpopulation myth,” Joseph A. D’Agostino asserts that “the world’s population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline.” He continues, quoting Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute:

Professor Kari Norgaard’s assertion that skeptics of man-made climate change should be “treated” for some kind of psychological disease because they refuse to be brainwashed by the global warming mantra gives us an opportunity to take a retrospective look at some choice cuts from past statements made by climate alarmists in which they openly advocate fascism under the banner of saving the planet.

- Forum for the Future, an organization funded by monolithic elitist banks and corporations like Royal Dutch Shell and Bank of America as well as the British government, floated the scenario in the video above as one of the proposals for their “Megacities on the move” project. The clip shows every facet of human behavior, from meat consumption, to car use, to career choices, regulated by a dictatorial technocracy. People who resist the state controlling every aspect of their existence will be forced to live in squalid ghettos while the rest of the population will be tightly controlled in high-tech prison cities. As we previously documented, every draconian idea in this scenario has been borrowed from historical dictatorships, but it’s all OK because it’s for the earth!

- Finnish environmentalist guru Pentti Linkola, publicly called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

- Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.

- In 2010, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, told the Guardian that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

- This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in his book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

- Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

- The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

- The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto. “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

- These control freaks even see the very act of breathing itself as a sin against mother earth. A 2007 New York Times editorial seriously floated the idea that humans should be taxed for exhaling carbon dioxide and “using the atmosphere like a municipal dump”.

- In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology. Watch the clip below.

Global Great Depression and Population Reduction by 2030: MIT and The Club of Rome Prophecy

Michael EdwardsPrisonplanet.comApril 8, 2012

As tyranny continues its march out into the open, it is increasingly becoming cloaked in green. Under the guise of saving humanity, a chorus of recent announcements within elite circles, think-tanks, educational institutions, and the halls of science are calling for drastic measures to stop the planet’s inevitable implosion from an overshot carrying capacity.

A rather infamous book, from a rather infamous group called The Club of Rome, is making a reappearance as humanity hurtles toward demise if its stewardship is not turned over to technocrats. Limits to Growth (1972) is nothing short of a blueprint for population reduction and neo-feudalism; or, as Yale economist Henry Wallich stated at the time of its release, its implementation means “consigning billions to poverty.”

It appears that this plan has been green-lighted by the elite, as recent MIT research validates the conclusions drawn by Limits to Growth at this crucial time when we see the world economy imploding, and a jack-booted green police ready to hit the streets. According to MIT, we are headed toward a guaranteed planet-wide economic collapse and “precipitous population decline” if we do not heed the words of The Club of Rome.

Austerity riots and suicides are filling the streets throughout Europe, as draconian measures are being taken to curb runaway debt. This debt has provably been created by the Ponzi scheme of international banksters who have employed a loan-shark framework that is only paying dividends to those in position to buy up deliberately collapsed assets for pennies on the dollar.

There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland.

While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the American government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received American foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should be noted, is the mentor of and frequent collaborator with John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.)

This full-page newspaper ad from a prominent population control group warns that Third World people are a threat to peace. (Click to enlarge)

Courtesy Princeton University LibraryUntil the mid-1960s, American population control programs, both at home and abroad, were largely funded and implemented by private organizations such as the Population Council and Planned Parenthood — groups with deep roots in the eugenics movement. While disposing of millions of dollars provided to them by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Milbank Foundations, among others, the resources available to support their work were meager in comparison with their vast ambitions. This situation changed radically in the mid-1960s, when the U.S. Congress, responding to the agitation of overpopulation ideologues, finally appropriated federal funds to underwrite first domestic and then foreign population control programs. Suddenly, instead of mere millions, there were hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars available to fund global campaigns of mass abortion and forced sterilization. The result would be human catastrophe on a worldwide scale.

Among the first to be targeted were America’s own Third World population at home — the native American Indians. Starting in 1966, Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall began to make use of newly available Medicaid money to set up sterilization programs at federally funded Indian Health Services (IHS) hospitals. As reported by Angela Franks in her 2005 book Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy:

These sterilizations were frequently performed without adequate informed consent…. Native American physician Constance Redbird Uri estimated that up to one-quarter of Indian women of childbearing age had been sterilized by 1977; in one hospital in Oklahoma, one-fourth of the women admitted (for any reason) left sterilized…. She also gathered evidence that all the pureblood women of the Kaw tribe in Oklahoma were sterilized in the 1970s....

Unfortunately, and amazingly, problems with the Indian Health Service seem to persist … recently (in the early 1990s), in South Dakota, IHS was again accused of not following informed-consent procedures, this time for Norplant, and apparently promoted the long-acting contraceptive to Native American women who should not use it due to contraindicating, preexisting medical conditions. The Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center reports that one woman was recently told by her doctors that they would remove the implant only if she would agree to a tubal ligation. The genocidal dreams of bureaucrats still cast their shadow on American soil.

A new round of calls for punishing austerity and depopulation strategies have sprung up in the wake of a Royal Society report ringing the alarm on the so-called overpopulation crisis. The report, entitled "People and the Planet" was published on April 26th and followed up by a flurry of articles by the usual suspects dutifully parroting the society's dire warnings about the future of humanity in a crowding world. Paul Ehrlich was even trotted out to chastise the Society for not going far enough in their report, instead intimating that 5 billion people would have to disappear from the face of the earth for the population to be at a "sustainable" level.

The irony is that this is the same Paul Ehrlich who was crying wolf about the "Population Bomb" 45 years ago and was proven wrong on almost every prediction he made at the time. In 1968 Ehrlich predicted that "hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death" in the 1970s, but he was wrong. In 1969 he predicted that "smog disasters" were going be killing 200,000 people per year in cities like New York and L.A. by the mid-70s, but he was wrong. Also in 1969 he actually claimed he "would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Last we checked, England is still here. In 1975 he envisioned that "food riots" in America in the 1980s would lead to the dissolution of Congress, another prediction that failed to come to pass. The next year he argued that "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Wrong again.

By 1980, economist Julian Simon had grown weary of listening to the doom and gloom of those who, like Ehrlich, continued to predict one disaster scenario after another in the name of this supposed overpopulation crisis. He offered a wager to anyone who was willing to take him up on it that the price of any given raw material would be lower on any given future date than it was at the time. Paul Ehrlich took him up on the wager, and the two drafted a futures contract obligating Ehrlich to buy $1000 worth of copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten from Simon in 1990 at 1980 prices. By the time the contract matured, the prices had fallen and Ehrlich was forced to cut Simon a check for $576.07. Simon offered a further $20,000 wager with the added incentive that Ehrlich could pick whatever resources and whatever time frame he wished, but Ehrlich had learned the valuable lesson not to put his money where his mouth was.

Despite a career of failed arguments and predictions that never came true, Ehrlich won a MacArthur Foundation genius grant and is still treated as a venerated, knowledgeable figure on the subject of population. The problem, of course, is that adherents of his particular brand of doomsaying are inclined to believe these predictions of doom because it affirms their Malthusian worldview. Thomas Malthus was an employee of the British East India Company who hit upon the idea that food production increases arithmetically while population increases exponentially. Thus, argued Malthus in his infamous 1798 "Essay on the Principle of Population," it was a mathematical certainty that the world was on a crash course for demographic disaster. The problem for Malthus and his acolytes, however, is that they have in each and every generation failed to understand that the question of population and resources is not a zero-sum game. In each and every generation since Malthus first wrote his treatise, human ingenuity has developed technologies and techniques that have helped to expand the arable land for farming and agriculture and increased the number of crops that can be grown in each acre, even as the number of people required to work that land has fallen. Every generation a new crop of Malthusians emerge to argue that this time the expansion of the food supply will fail and the world will be plunged into chaos, and in each and every generation the predicted apocalypse has failed to arrive. Worse yet for those who argue so strenuously for the Here we are over 200 years later and the Malthusians of our own time continue to argue that the same disaster that has failed to arrive for two centuries is now just around the corner.

Unfortunately we don't have to dig very deep to see the dark side of this Malthusian bent. In 1969, Ehrlich stated that if voluntary birth control methods did not curb population growth fast enough for his liking, governments might have to consider "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food or to the water supply." In 1972 UN climate guru Maurice Strong argued that governments should license couples to have children. In 1977, Obama "science czar" John Holdren co-authored with Ehrlich a tome called "Ecoscience" that mused once again about the possibility of forced abortions and sterilants in the water supply as a way of curbing population growth. In 2002, the editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine lamented the introduction of electricity to Africa. The Malthusian philosophy is the perfect false front for an ideology that bemoans economic development and technological progress.

Interestingly, even the UN's own population and fertility estimates show that overpopulation is not the real problem. The UN is projecting a world population of 9 billion by 2050 and a leveling off after that point. The global fertility rate (children per couple) was 4.95 in 1950-1955. It was 2.79 in 2000-2005. It is expected to be 1.63 in 2095-2100. To put that in perspective, the replacement fertility rate that would be required to maintain the population at current levels is projected to be 2.1 in developed countries and as high as 3.4 in developing countries due to higher child mortality rates. With a global fertility rate of 1.63 by the end of the century, the human race will be essentially breeding itself out of existence.

Quite contrary to the projections of the Malthusians, the very real danger to the economy and the species itself is the very real demographic shift that happens in a shrinking population. This phenomenon is referred to as demographic winter and has been understood by demographers for decades. Population is still growing because of high fertility rates in previous generations and longer life spans, but declining fertility rates will turn into population decline in a number of nations within the century should these trends hold. The countries of the developed world, with their fertility rates already in decline, will be the first to experience the effects of this transition. Countries like Greece, Russia, Taiwan, Lithuania, South Korea and others that already have a fertility rate below 1.5 and little influx of immigrants are either already declining in population or are expected to within a decade.

Japan is one of the countries on the forefront of this decline. Having some of the longest-lived people on the planet and ranking 202 out of 220 countries and regions for fertility rates, Japan is already starting to cope with the effects of a rapidly aging population. The Japanese government is increasingly turning to politically painful measures just to try to keep the country's massive social security program going. Accounting for 29 percent of its $1.12 trillion dollar 2012 budget, the cost of taking care of Japan's pensioners is only going to increase as more and more of the post-war boomer generation begin to come up for retirement. The workers per retiree ratio is falling across the majority of the globe, with Japan falling from 9.1 workers per retiree in 1965 to a projected worker/retiree parity in 2050. In effect, by the middle of the century each Japanese worker will be asked to pay for the retirement of one of their elders. This is of course completely untenable, but the political will to make changes to the system is utterly lacking, especially since the majority of the population is retired or retiring in the near future and is unlikely to vote themselves out of an entitlement system they have spent their life paying into. Instead, the Japanese Prime Minister du jour, Yoshihiko Noda, is trying to rally the country around tax hikes that are explicitly aimed at making up social security shortfalls.

The situation, while perhaps more acute in Japan, is common to countries across the developed world, including the United States. No one entering the work force today expects there to be a social security system of the kind that exists today by the time they reach retirement, but there is no way to put the brakes on a system of unfunded liabilities that today's retirees spent their life "paying into." Reforming the system seems a politically quixotic quest, and is the ultimate Catch-22 inherent in the program itself since the moment of its inception under FDR in the 1930s. A population suffering from the effects of the Great Depression was promised a program that would take care of them in old age. Now during our current ongoing depression, what little social security payouts that the boomers have inherited after a lifetime of paying in is being inflated away into nothing by Helicopter Ben and the quantitative easing crew. Europe is even worse, with retirees and pensioners committing public suicide in places like Greece rather than subject themselves to a life of picking through garbage in the wake of Eurocrat-dictated austerity measures.

Other economic effects of the greying population will begin to make themselves felt in the coming years, as well. Real estate and stock market declines are inevitable in a society with an increasing number of aging retirees cinching up the purse strings and fewer young couples buying houses or investing in the markets. Declines in saving rates, outputs per capita and living standards are all likewise projected as inevitable in a world of shrinking population. Given the immensity of the problems generated by this demographic transition, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Malthusians have placed the problem of the "population bomb" on its head: the real "Population Bomb" of the 21st century is not the problem of too many people, but too few.

The Malthusians tend to argue that their end goal is that imagined state of "sustainability" by which the economy of the future will not be predicated on growth, but instead will be a static system that will maintain itself via renewability. Whatever one thinks of the viability or desirability of such a system, the stark fact is that such a system is impossible in the paradigm of declining fertility rates. In fact, in order to achieve sustainability, the human race would have to find a way to reverse the fertility decline. It's an irony that aging doomsayers like Ehrlich and Holdren may not live long enough to behold come to fruition in their lifetime, but to achieve the very goals they claim to be aiming toward, there may be only one hope for the human species: Bring on the babies.

As our planet will look like in 40 years? A report for the research network "Club of Rome" is characterized in a 2052 outlook for a gloomy picture.

Berlin / Rotterdam early as mid-20s had the Norwegian Jorgen Randers at the Club of Rome report co-wrote "The Limits to Growth" in 1972. Now, as a 66-year-old, he warns again before crossing the limits of our nature - in the subsequent report to the Club of Rome's research network.

Climate change will have the "2052" report indicates that a dramatic increase titled in the second half of the century, causing much suffering. "The negative impact will be clear," Randers warned at the launch of the report on Monday in Rotterdam. . "Humanity has exhausted the resources of the earth and we will see in some cases even before a local collapse in 2052. We come every year from twice as much greenhouse gas as forests and oceans can absorb. "

"Club of Rome" - for a better world

Merger

The "Club of Rome" is an amalgamation of personalities from politics, science, culture and economy.

"Sustainable Future"

The non-profit organization with approximately 100 members from more than 30 countries, is committed to a livable and sustainable future of mankind. She wants to raise awareness of the complex problems of the world and possible solutions.

Draw attention to

With their projects and publications, they tried to decision makers in politics and economy as the increasing poverty in developing countries, rapid population growth and global environmental problems to your attention.

Founder

The club was founded in 1968 on the initiative of the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei (1908-1984) and the Scottish scientist Alexander King (1909-2007) in Rome.

"The Limits to Growth"

He caused a sensation in 1972 with the report "The Limits to Growth". The plant called the shortage of raw material into consciousness and sparked a worldwide debate.

The report published 40 years after the first major report commissioned by the Club of Rome and contributions from leading scientists, economists and futurists contains various departments. As early as 1972, the research group had warned of the limits to growth and from pollution.

"The sea level will be higher by 0.5 meters, the Arktiseis disappear in summer and the new weather will meet with farmers and tourists," predicts Randers. Greenhouse gas emissions are achieved according to him, as late as 2030 peaked.

The Elite Believe That You Are Ruining Their Planet And They Want You To Stop Reproducing

Micheal SynderThe American DreamMay 16, 2012

Today, there are more than 7 billion people living on earth. For the global elite, that is problem number one. The vast majority of us don’t spend much time thinking about global population issues, but for many among the elite it is an absolute obsession. Many of them truly believe that you are ruining their planet and they desperately want you to stop reproducing so much. Among the elite, the belief that the world is grossly overpopulated and that this is causing most of our major global problems crosses all political, cultural and social boundaries. This philosophy is taught as gospel at the vast majority of all colleges and universities on the planet, and it is being relentlessly pushed by the United Nations, the WHO, the World Bank and national governments all over the globe. When most people think of “overpopulation”, they think of places such as India, but the truth is that those of us living in America are considered to be the worst offenders because our lifestyles are “polluting” the planet so rapidly. In fact, one scientist recently estimated that a child born in the United States has a “carbon legacy” 55 times greater than a child born in India. The elite are convinced that if they can reduce the global population far enough and get the remaining people living on earth to switch over to “sustainable lifestyles” that they will be able to save “their” planet. But the draconian measures that would be necessary to achieve this dystopian dream would not be very palatable to the vast majority of us. In fact, if the most radical population control advocates get their way, we will experience global tyranny on a scale never seen before.

Right now, most of us living in the western world are not prepared to accept “forced” population control measures and the global elite know this. But the truth is that they absolutely love what is going on right now in places such as China.

In China today, a one child policy is strictly enforced, and women are literally pulled from their homes and taken to abortion clinics when they are found to be in violation. The following example comes from a recent CNN article....

The bible of Libertarian doctrine is Murray N. Rothbard’s book The Ethics of Liberty.

In it, Rothbard stated “in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.” By this maxim, there should be no taxation to support the aged, the poor, dependent children, etc. In the “free” society that Libertarians envision, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no unemployment compensation, no government-mandated workplace safety precautions, no workman’s compensation insurance, no minimum wage law, no laws against child labor, and no tax-funded public schools. Government would provide no “welfare” of any kind. Individuals, no matter what their age, disability, or hard luck, would have to fend for themselves or beg for private charity; those for whom charity was not forthcoming would die.

Libertarians take this harsh concept of personal freedom even further. Rothbard was sincere when he wrote,“Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.”

If this doesn’t seem chillingly familiar, it should: Rothbard merely reformulated the logic used by Nazi eugenicists to justify the killing by starvation of several thousand handicapped German children into Libertarian terms. Many good, middle class Christian Germans who supported the Nazi Party’s rise to power later claimed that they thought what Hitler said in Mein Kampf was merely rhetoric, and did not think that the Nazis really intended to put it into practice. Americans dare not make the same mistake with the Libertarians who are using the Tea Party to hijack the Republican Party and turn it into their Trojan Horse.

Rothbard reminds us that reasoning completely from first principles and paying attention only to the means rather than the ends can lead to truly batshit heights of insanity, envisioning the wonders of a "free baby market":http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

“ Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. " (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)[12]

=========

I wonder how many "libertarians" actually read this stuff?

Logged

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Matthew 25:40

Rothbard reminds us that reasoning completely from first principles and paying attention only to the means rather than the ends can lead to truly batshit heights of insanity, envisioning the wonders of a "free baby market"

Or to put it another way, he unwittingly reminds us that just because something has been wrapped in the flag of "liberty" doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with "liberty."

And as you correctly point out, Rothbard isn't just anybody; he is arguably to anarcho-capitalism what Karl Marx is to communism.

Yet an alarming number of label-obsessed reactionaries have become so brainwashed by "either-or" thinking, they honestly believe it's impossible to be a proponent of neither of those two morally bankrupt ideologies.

Or to put it another way, he reminds us that just because something has been wrapped in the flag of "liberty" doesn't mean it actually has anything to do with "liberty."

And as you correctly point out, Rothbard isn't just anybody; he is arguably to anarcho-capitalism what Karl Marx is to communism.

Yet an alarming number of label-obsessed reactionaries have become so brainwashed by "either-or" thinking, they honestly believe it's impossible to be a proponent of neither of those two morally bankrupt ideologies.

From what I encounter on the ground, a large portion of the average vote base is Chicago-school oriented (in summary: maintain the economic status quo in terms of currency and taxes, privatize more, bail out the corrupt financial institutions, but impose austerity in the form of welfare and service cuts).

The Elite Are Attempting To Convince Us That Killing Off Our Sick Grandparents Is Cool And Trendy

Michael SnyderThe American DreamJune 13, 2012

What should be done with elderly Americans when they become very seriously ill? Should we try to save their lives or should we just let them die? Unfortunately, there is a growing consensus among the “intellectual elite” that most elderly people are not going to have a high enough “quality of life” to justify the expense of costly life saving procedures. This philosophy is now being promoted very heavily through mainstream news outlets, in our television shows and in big Hollywood movies. The elite are attempting to convince us that killing off our sick grandparents is cool and trendy. We are being told that “pulling the plug” on grandma and grandpa is compassionate (because it will end their suffering), that it is good for the environment and that it is even good for the economy. We are being told that denying life saving treatments to old people will dramatically reduce health care costs and make the system better for all of us. We are being told that it is not “efficient” for health insurance companies to shell out $100,000 for an operation that may extend the life of an elderly person by 6 months. But the truth is that all of this is part of a larger agenda that the elite are attempting to advance. As I have written about previously, the elite love death, and they truly believe that reducing the population is good for society and good for the planet. Sadly, population control propaganda has reached a fever pitch in recent months.

Time Magazine has just come out with a very shocking cover story entitled “How To Die”. The article goes on and on about how wonderful and compassionate it is to remove life saving treatment from sick relatives.

A recent article by Mike Adams summarized the message of this disgusting article....

Inside, the magazine promotes a cost-saving death agenda that encourages readers to literally “pull the feeding tubes” from their dying elderly parents, causing them to dehydrate and die. This is explained as a new cost-saving measure that drastically reduces return hospital visits by the elderly… yeah, because dead people don’t return to the hospital, of course.

The idea that we might ration health care to seniors (or anyone else) is political anathema. Politicians do not dare breathe the R word, lest they be accused—however wrongly—of trying to pull the plug on Grandma. But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate. Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. At a more basic level, Americans are afraid not just of dying, but of talking and thinking about death. Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable.

Sadly, articles like that one are becoming quite frequent in mainstream media sources.

Just a few days ago, a Bloomberg article entitled “How ‘Death Panels’ Can Prolong Life” declared that we must “deny treatment to people who want it” in order to hold down costs....

In short, all the Republican talk during the health-care- reform debate about “death panels” was melodramatic and unfair, but not ridiculous. One way or another, holding down health-care costs will require policies that deny treatment to people who want it. And want it because it will extend their lives.

This goes on already, all the time. Health insurance companies have been known to deny payment for treatments deemed unnecessary. Age limits for organ transplants are another example. All policies that involve denying care because of “quality of life” considerations are, in effect, “death panels.” But no society can afford to give every citizen every possible therapy. Medicare is going broke trying.

So who are we supposed to deny treatment to?

The elderly of course.

According to that Bloomberg article, we are supposed to kill off our sick grandparents because the “quality of life” they would be expected to have if they recover would not be enough to warrant spending so much to save them....

A $200,000 operation can add a year or two to the life of an octogenarian, or it can save decades of life for younger people. In a country like the U.S., with an average life expectancy of 78.5, it takes 10 septuagenarians who get an extra five years from the health-care system to balance a single 30- year-old who gets 50 extra years. Or save the life of a newborn, who then enjoys a normal life span and dies at 78.5, and you have the same impact on national life expectancy as 16 operations on septuagenarians. The average national life expectancy can increase even as the cost goes down.

This is the kind of thinking that starts happening in a society that dramatically devalues life.

If human life has little value, then it is easy to start justifying things that would have once been unthinkable.

ATHENS, Ga. (CBS Atlanta) – A recent study conducted by scientists in London found that the obese persons of the world are playing an increasingly large role in the rate at which the planet’s finite resources are used.

“Increasing population fatness could have the same implications for world food energy demands as an extra half a billion people living on the earth,” the study concluded.

The findings were published in the BMC Public Health journal earlier this year.

Research was conducted based on the theory that the body mass of a population should be factored into the amount of energy it burns, in addition to the number of people residing in a certain region.

Though obesity touches all corners of the Earth, it was found that Americans were especially weighing down the planet.

In a report published last April by the Royal Society titled People and the Planet, the elitist UK-based society calls for massive population reduction and de-industrialization of the west. However drenched in euphemisms, the report cannot conceal its ominous undertones. Listed among its “key recommendations” the report proposes several measures similar to the one put out recently by MIT in which a drastic reduction of the population is called for in the name of “modelling” and predictions.

Immediately after the Royal Society released its call for more death and mega-cities, none other than Paul Ehrlich weighed in to regurgitate his own eugenic fancies. The Guardian reported that Ehrlich, who contributed to the report, eagerly endorses its conclusions. In regards to redistributing wealth, Ehrlich is quite upfront about his opinion on the matter:

“They (population and resources) multiply together. You have to deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away from the rich to the poor.”

“How many of your support depends on lifestyles.”, Ehrlich stated. “We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

Then Ehrlich plays the harp strings of fear, making more veiled death-threats:

“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”

Some of the conclusions of the Royal Society report:

“The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.”

What the Royal Society terms “systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact” is actually a rephrasing of Agenda 21’s plan to gradually de-industrialize the west as well as the creation of megacities in which the bulk of the world’s population can be locked up to make them more manageable.

Or, what the Royal Society calls “the potential for urbanisation to reduce material consumption.”

In a statement put out by “Planet Under Pressure” in the run-up to the 2012 “Earth Summit” several scientists called for denser cities in order to mitigate worldwide population growth. When in doubt that UN’s Agenda 21 is not the Mein Kampf of our day, one should consider yet another in-your-face confession from yet another certified biocratic control freak.

According to an MSNBC article one of the scientists while speaking about human populations worldwide, stated:

“We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].”

Insisting the world’s population be locked up within the confounds of mega-cities, the elite realizes that if the herd is to be properly controlled walls are needed- thick walls, and by constructing these walls, making the masses go this or that way will be made easier..

“If cities can develop in height rather than in width that would be much more preferable and environmentally not as harmful”, Fragkias said.

People who know anything about history know that the creation of mega-cities in which the masses may be rounded up and enclosed, is identical to the Nazi principle of the “ghetto” as a means of managing the masses. Every student of history may also know what happens to those masses shortly after.

The UK based population control advocacy group Population Matters felt compelled to respond to the latest controversy surrounding their patron David Attenborough, who recently stated humans are a “plague on the earth”.

In a press release posted on its website, the organization expresses support for their beloved patron’s statements, concurring that mankind may be viewed as a plague upon the planet- not to be understood as a disease as such, but rather as the way this disease spreads.

“What did he (Attenborough) mean? Surely he does not mean that we are a disease? More probably, he was thinking of a plague of locusts, which consumes all that it sees, and then dies off.”

“That analogy is apt.”, the statement continues. “Human numbers have doubled in the last fifty years to seven billion. Natural habitats, wildlife and fish stocks are falling around the world, due to development, overexploitation and climate change. Resources, too, are being steadily depleted, whether that be water sources, fertile land, fossil fuels or key minerals such as fertilizers.”

This kind of thinking was effectively commincated in the first Matrix film:

Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich at it again: “The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people”.

In a piece published March 2 titled Food insecurity will eat away at our civilization, neo-eugenicist Paul Ehrlich gives us a condensed version of his recent research endeavors, calling for “back-up abortions” to prevent what his colleague Philip Cafaro calls “interspecies genocide”. In addition, he repeats the conclusions of his recent study for the American Institute of Biological Sciences, proposing mass mind-control and increased environmental regulations.

In their recent summary, the Ehrlichs write:

“The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people. While the degree to which these steps would reduce total fertility rates is a matter of controversy, they would deliver significant social and economic benefits by making huge reservoirs of fresh brain power available to solve our problems, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing the number of unsafe abortions.”

Paul Ehrlich and his wife are busy little bees these days, publishing their death-talk in practically every scientific institution with a printing press. In their latest study for the Royal Society, endorsed by none other than Prince Charles, titled Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?, the demonic duo asserts that civilization is certain to collapse – and only a concerted global effort to reduce fertility may avert catastrophe. The Ehrlichs describe this “concerted global effort” as a monumental task:

“Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.”

These words contain some drastic and draconian implications. In order to provide “back-up abortions” to women on a global scale, a worldwide population reduction strategy must be outlined and then enforced by all nations of the planet. The Ehrlichs concede that such a worldwide effort would not go down well with nations opposing abortions:

“Obviously (…) there are huge cultural and institutional barriers to establishing such policies in some parts of the world. After all, there is not a single nation where women are truly treated as equal to men. Despite that, the population driver should not be ignored simply because limiting overconsumption can, at least in theory, be achieved more rapidly. The difficulties of changing demographic trajectories mean that the problem should have been addressed sooner, rather than later.”, the Ehrlichs write.

Responding to countless recent studies showing that not overpopulation, but underpopulation seems to be an increasing problem, especially in Europe, the Ehrlichs state:

“That halting population growth inevitably leads to changes in age structure is no excuse for bemoaning drops in fertility rates, as is common in European government circles. Reduction of population size in those over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning can deal with the problems of population aging.”

They also write that besides change in the politics of demography, the educational system should join the effort in a “symmetrical” manner, “moving towards sustainability and enhancing equity (including global wealth redistribution).” The scientific community must throw its weight behind the effort, the Ehrlichs say, with the aim of countering religious argumentation underlining the value of life:

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth, is obvious but too much neglected or denied. There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence. They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk reduction strategies, it is now.”

Global population reduction and global redistribution of wealth. These things can of course only be accomplished globally, through the concerted effort of governments everywhere, or- as the authors declare, “an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”:

“At the global level, the loose network of agreements that now tie countries together”, they write, “developed in a relatively recent stage of cultural evolution since modern nation states appeared, is utterly inadequate to grapple with the human predicament. Strengthening global environmental governance and addressing the related problem of avoiding failed statehood are tasks humanity has so far refused to tackle comprehensively even as cultural evolution in technology has rendered the present international system (as it has educational systems) obsolete. Serious global environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”

The two end this line of reasoning by regurgitating the neo-Malthusian mantra- which simultaneously harbors a veiled threat, namely:

“If people do not do that, nature will restructure civilization for us.”

In other words: it’s either global environmental government or mass death. These “prominent” scientists keep stressing that as long as the people quietly follow the directives of the scientific dictatorship, destruction may yet be averted. This is a form of blackmail seldom seen as such. It is the way of the serial killer, drawing his victim into his lair, all smiles and civility. Once captured, the victim will never again see the light of day.

Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

In an interview with Vice, the urban designer, former Florida gubernatorial candidate and futurist proposed the concept of ‘birth credits‘ to help curb what he terms a “slow-moving, global disaster like overpopulation”:

“China, and the rest of the world, would be better served by a choice-based marketable birth license plan, or ‘birth credits,’ that could stop or reverse population growth on a dime… Each person would be issued half of a birth credit, which he or she can combine with a partner to have one child, or a person can sell his or her (half) credit at the going market rate. Each additional child costs one more credit. Noncompliance would bring a fine greater than the cost of the credit, and there would be sanctions for non-compliant countries (such as migration restrictions).”

The Wikipedia entry for birth credits (which I’m just guessing was actually written or edited by Arth due to the tone which seems to suggest what a brilliant idea birth credits are) explains the scheme in more detail:

“Birth credits would allow any woman to have as many children as she wants, as long as she buys a license for any children beyond an average allotment that would result in zero population growth. If that allotment was determined to be one child, for example, then the first child would be free, and the market would determine the cost of the license for each additional child. The incentive to society is the prevention of an overpopulation-related tragedy of the commons, including an immediate reduction in unwanted children… As with traffic laws, enforcement of birth credits could be through fines, tax levies, or loss of privileges.”

The Arth plan — which Wikipedia says would “serve more as a wake-up call to women who might otherwise produce children without seriously considering the long term consequences to themselves or society” — also assumes that rich people won’t buy extra birth credits because they already limit their families by choice. (Tell that to billionaire Ted Turner who has five children but advocates a one-child policy for the rest of the world to reduce the population down to two billion people.)

Sounds like those with more money will be able to afford to procreate or at least have an option to procreate the most and the poor people won’t. Sound familiar?

The austerity measures used to achieve the solution do not improve the lives of the many, but instead, deliberately deprive them. With carbon credits, people’s access to energy is cut off if they cannot afford to pay a premium for it; in the case of birth licenses or credits, the right to reproduce is determined by a cruel sliding scale of eugenics mathematics.

Fellow overpopulation eugenicists John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich (known for The Population Bomb) were beating a similar drum back in 1977′s Ecoscience, presenting views that eerily parallel Arth’s draconian blueprints for population control. This textbook revealed in a section titled “Involuntary fertility control” how such a reaching birth licensing scheme could be rolled out, and at what price to liberty:

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility.” (Pg. 786-7) [emphasis added]

Key phrase here: “with official permission”. In Holdren and Ehrlich’s book, such permission would be granted by a ‘planetary regime’ that also has control over all international trade and all food on the international market — a one world government.

Who do you think will ultimately control the birth credits in Arth’s plan?

In continuing with Vice, Arth also asserted China’s one-child policy was inadequate and stated:

“Now, thanks to the one-child policy – to which there are many exceptions, by the way – China’s ageing population will probably not grow much more from now on, as long as they don’t remove the restrictions.”

Exceptions? Arth fails to mention the fact that A) China already has a below-replacement fertility rate and B) because of the nation’s barbaric one-child policy combined with the preference for male children in China, female infanticide has skyrocketed, leaving the country’s ratio of boys-to-girls severely skewed. As a result, ‘Bride kidnapping‘ has resurfaced throughout the country, a practice that occurred regularly throughout China until the 1940s. Stories of little girls getting kidnapped so sons can have wives come out of China on a regular basis these days.

In addition, the horrific practice of forced abortion is a daily occurrence in China; that means government officials break into a pregnant woman’s home, drag her out against her will and take her to a hospital where she is forced to undergo an abortion which could be performed at any stage in her pregnancy.

Arth also goes on to say that zero population growth is a good goal, but really we need to do more:

“Zero population growth is the minimum we should aim for, but negative population growth would help prepare for the time in the near future when people will live indefinitely long.”

Interesting, considering the actual data shows that the majority of developing countries are already sitting at zero or negative population growth as it is. The only countries that are not in that category are developing African nations that happen to have some of the shortest life expectancies on the planet. Whereas people in developed nations live an average of 80 years, people in many of these African nations have an average lifespan that doesn’t even reach 50 years.

But Arth asserts that in the near future, people will live indefinitely, so we have to plan accordingly and start depopulating faster now. He does not seem to realize that the technocratic elite do not plan for such technology to ever be available to everybody. The plebs aren’t invited to that party.

Think about it. If these people are this worried about overpopulation now, why in the world would they want to make everyone live forever?

Schemes like birth plans are nothing more than eugenics, plain and simple, and overpopulation is nothing more than a myth propagated for one bad agenda.

The Population Control Agenda Is Being Relentlessly Pushed In American Public Schools

Michael SnyderAmerican DreamOctober 23, 2013

Do you want your kids to be taught that the earth has too many people and that they should have no more than two children for the good of the planet? Yes, I know that this sounds absolutely crazy, but this is actually the kind of propaganda that is being forced upon our young people all over America. The population control agenda is being relentlessly pushed in high school textbooks, in classroom instruction and by outside organizations that are given constant access to our high school students. As you will see below, the number one population control organization in the United States, Planned Parenthood, conducts nearly 900 presentations in high schools in the Los Angeles area every single year. And the population control propaganda gets even worse once our kids go off to college. I know – I spent eight years in the classroom at U.S. public universities and most parents would be absolutely horrified to learn what their children are being taught.

These days, the population control propaganda is becoming more blatant than ever. Recently, Father John Hollowell was walking down the halls of an Indiana high school when he came across the following banner hanging above some lockers…

At first when I walked past the sign I thought to myself – “Oh, cool, they’re starting to catch on that our population levels are at a critical phase and that we’re heading for a demographic winter because no one is having kids anymore; they’re trying to get the word out that our population growth is trending towards a crisis….”

Then I literally had a sick feeling in my stomach when I realized I had the sign completely wrong.

The math “project” hanging in the hallway reads – “Zero Population Growth…It’s Up To You – No More Than Two”

My jaw hit the floor. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s “Theology” on full display in our public schools.

You can’t probably read the sign but it has one smiley face representing 10 million people…and I mean look at the sign…if people keep having kids the smiley faces won’t fit in the box anymore! Look how scientific it is (sarcasm).

Sadly, this was not an isolated incident. The truth is that this type of philosophy is being relentlessly pounded into the heads of our teens.

Today, Planned Parenthood is allowed to directly teach kids about sex, pregnancy and birth control in high schools all over America. If you can believe it, Planned Parenthood actually has a clinic inside one Los Angeles high school. And according to the official Planned Parenthood website, Planned Parenthood delivers close to 900 presentations to high school students in the Los Angeles area every single year…

Planned Parenthood Los Angeles’ high school sexuality education program focuses on the important decisions that young people have to make about their sexuality and offers information and resources that enable teens to take responsibility and make healthy choices, including abstinence. Educational sessions are presented to ninth grade students, with an effort to provide a comfortable and informative learning experience. Topics include: Sexuality, Teen Pregnancy, Healthy Bodies, Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI’s), and Birth Control. Sessions are facilitated by trained speakers credentialed by Planned Parenthood who have undergone a rigorous 40-hour training course. The High School program conducts almost 900 presentations each year by invitation to over 30 schools, and serves Metropolitan Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, and other areas, based on availability.

And it is important to remember that Planned Parenthood is far from a “neutral” organization. In fact, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once made the following statement…

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Contrary to Malthusian propaganda, the problem is not that the world itself is "overpopulated," but that the people of the world are overparasitized by ruling-class oligarchs.

In response to "Mary," with whom Alex spoke during the first two segments of the second hour of today's show...

"According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

"So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house."

Author and media pundit Dan Savage was asked by an audience member, “Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if it were implemented?”

“Population control. There’s too many god—- people on the planet!” responded Savage as the audience applauded. “And I don’t know if that’s a – you know, I’m pro-choice. I believe that women should have the right to control their bodies. Sometimes in my darker moments I’m anti-choice.”

He continued: “I think abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years. That’s a dangerous idea. She wanted a dangerous idea. So throw a chair at me.”

Savage’s previous exploits include vowing to inseminate his husband for God, wishing that “the Republicans were all f**king dead,” and expressing the desire that a political candidate “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.”

Savage’s favored policy of mandatory abortion is already in place in Communist China, where women who flout the country’s infamous one child policy and cannot pay huge fines are kidnapped off the street by government goons, beaten up,dragged off to state hospitals and subjected to horrific forced abortions.

A recent case which attracted media attention involved a woman who had her home raided in the middle of the night by government officials, before she was abducted, taken to a hospital and forcibly injected with an abortion-inducing drug, terminating her baby which was just three months from being born.

Babies are even forcibly aborted at 9 months old, dying in the arms of their mother, while others are thrown in buckets while they are still alive. Activists who speak out against forced abortion in China are also persecuted by the government.

News network CNN, in addition to billionaire Ted Turner and other elitists, along with a whole host of pressure groups committed to pushing for population control, have all advocated the one child policy.

In his 1977 book Ecoscience, current senior White House science advisor John P. Holdren floated the idea of forced abortions and compulsory sterilization, amongst a raft of other draconian population control measures, all of which would be carried out by a “Planetary Regime”.

During a 2011 speech at Sichuan University, Vice President Joe Biden told an audience that he “fully understands” China’s one child policy.

Aside from Savage’s call for draconian policies of forced abortion, the supposed threat posed by overpopulation itself is a myth. The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050.

As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”

Warnings about the threat posed by overpopulation are fundamentally flawed. In reality, underpopulation will be seen as the biggest danger to human prosperity in the latter half of the 21st century.

As Slate’s Jeff Wise documents, due to falling fertility rates, the population of Western Europe is set to shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. Meanwhile, Russia and China could lose half their population. Germany’s birthrate has sunk to to just 1.36, with Italy’s at 1.4 and Spain at 1.48, thanks to a natural phenomenon called “demographic transition,” which is the shift from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.

Human population is expected to peak at 9 billion from 2050-2070 and then it will start its decline. “In the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity,” writes Wise, pointing to a 2008 IIASA report.

Not only is Dan Savage’s call for mandatory abortion completely offensive and an insult to women in China and other countries who have been subjected to the horror of forced abortion, it’s justification – to reduce global population – is factually and scientifically bankrupt.

Logged

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

Did you know that the federal government has an “Office of Population Affairs”? I didn’t realize this either until someone sent me a link to their website. The Office of Population Affairs operates under the umbrella of the Department of Health & Human Services, and it might as well be called “The Office of Population Control” because almost everything on the website is about controlling or reducing the size of the population. On the site you can find information and resources about abortion, female sterilization, male sterilization and a vast array of contraceptive choices. There is even a search engine where you can find a local “family planning clinic” where you can get rid of any “unintended pregnancy” that may be bothering you. Frankly, it sickens me to think that my tax dollars are being used to fund all of this.

But the Office of Population Affairs is not just pro-abortion and pro-sterilization. On the page describing their “purpose and mission”, they actually admit that “population research” and studying “population growth” are part of their core work. The following is an excerpt from the official OPA website…

The National Academy of Sciences has published a shocking report which envisages a Chinese-style global one child policy as the only means of reversing climate change and reducing global population to a “sustainable” number of 1-2 billion people.

The white paper, entitled Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems and authored by the University of Adelaide’s Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook, even entertains the impact of world wars and global pandemics that wipe out 6 billion people as potential methods of combating the threat posed to the environment by overpopulation.

Crucially, the paper is edited by Stanford University’s Paul R. Ehrlich, a perennial advocate of population reduction whose dire proclamations about environmental catastrophes as a result of overpopulation have been proven wildly inaccurate time and time again.

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich infamously predicted that, “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death,” as a result of overpopulation, just one of many ludicrous forecasts that Ehrlich has got spectacularly wrong on a routine basis.

Ehrlich has also expressed his support for mandatory population control, arguing that such methods must be imposed “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail,” while the biologist co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime.”

Given that connection, it’s unsurprising that the white paper struggles to disguise its advocacy for draconian methods of population reduction in the name of saving mother Earth.

The report presents a selection of scenarios to achieve “reductions in human fertility” in order to prevent “climate change,” threats to biodiversity and to help “plan for a healthy future society.”

The authors admit that global fertility rates are already dropping but that “rising affluence-linked population and consumption rates” (in other words – higher standards of living) are contributing to worsening environmental conditions.

Under one scenario, a global pandemic wipes out 6 billion people from 2041 onwards, resulting in the planet’s population being reduced to 5.1 billion by 2100. However, this reduction of 2 billion people compared to current figures is not sufficient to accomplish the level of human culling desired by the authors, who note that “even future events that rival or plausibly exceed past societal cataclysms cannot guarantee small future population sizes without additional measures, such as fertility control.”

I first began to seriously look into the arguments that the world faces a terrifying over-population problem about a decade back, when I was researching for my book on the history of gene manipulation or GMO. I was curious and in a strange way impressed with the intensity of the interest of the Rockefeller family’s foundation and other organizations affiliated with that foundation to sponsor the study or the application of eugenics. The real story about our global population is radically different as from the picture the mainstream media would lead us to believe.

In the course of my research I came across documented evidence that the Rockefeller Foundation had not only financed much of the work of Margaret Sanger and her eugenics Planned Parenthood organization during the 1930’s, when her “Negro Project” in black Harlem was trying to develop ways to eliminate the black population. The same Rockefeller Foundation at the same time financed the work of the various experiments of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and Munich during the Third Reich. They knew exactly what barbarism they were supporting—ways to eliminate the “unfit.”

The same Rockefeller family in the 1950’s created and financed the enormously influential eugenics work of the John D. Rockefeller III Population Council.

In June 1952 John D. Rockefeller III convened a secret conference at Williamsurg, Virginia where some thirty of the nation’s most eminent conservationists, public health experts, Planned Parenthood leaders, agriculturalists, demographers and social scientists met. They formed a new group which could act as “a coordinating and catalytic agent in the broad field of population.” John D. Rockefeller III publicly christened The Population Council and announced that he himself would serve as its first president. They organized their vast financial and media resources to spread the myth of over-population that today is blindly accepted by most as scientific truth. They spread the myth that “people pollute,” or as the Rockefeller Foundation’s Alan Gregg preferred to describe growing human populations in the developing world, “cancerous growths that demand food.” Population reduction became the strategic priority, step-wise, of the US Government and then the US-controlled World Bank.

The Rockefeller-financed research into cheap, effective birth control, and other eugenics projects resulted in the US Government, officially and secretly, making reduction of population growth in key raw material rich developing countries like Brazil, India, Nigeria and Indonesia the explicit USA Government policy. “No population control, no USAID money.” Henry Kissinger drafted the document for it, NSSM-200, titled, ‘Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,’ and President Gerald Ford signed it as Government policy in 1975.

The mainstream media that has been controlled by Rockefellers and their eugenics-loving very rich and very loveless friends for decades, pumped us full of the myth that the world was a human “population bomb” as the title of a lying book by Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, in the time of the Vietnam War in the early 1970’s. In his book, published in 1970, Ehrlich argued, “We are going to have to adopt some very tough foreign policy positions…We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.”

There’s only one problem with their grand strategy of convincing us of an over-population danger. The world is facing, not a population bomb, but a population implosion, a collapse of the human species.

Geo I am always glad when this topic is brought up again. Exposure, exposure, exposure to the truth is such an important aspect of learning the truth. I loved in your first post on this how you described it as:

posted by: Geolibertarian

Quote

Bottom line: you can tell if someone has been brainwashed (however unknowingly) by Malthusian propaganda if he or she incessantly blames the mere existence of the many for the crimes of the few.

Dang that is such a true statement. When I first became aware of how my thinking had been manipulated by the lies around me it took repeated exposure to the over-population myth to fully understand just how sneaky those bastages are. Keep on exposing those rats for the true vermin they are. Thank you.

Logged

“Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus…”

Well, it's settled then. In his six years of life on this planet, he's "seen it". I'm just surprised he didn't break out an Etch-A-Sketch to draw a hockey stick graph.

6-Year-Old’s Climate Change Film Makes White House Debut

by Daniel Nussbaum20 Mar 2015

Montana first-grader Noah Gue will travel to the White House Friday to premiere a short film he made about climate change for the White House Student Film Festival.

The second annual White House Student Film Festival will feature 15 short films from teenage filmmakers in 12 states, according to the Associated Press. Projects expected to be screened in the East Room Friday afternoon include Los Angeles high school senior Riley Beres’ “sockumentary,” and a documentary about 18-year-0ld Archer Hadley’s fundraising effort to install wheelchair-accessible doors in his Texas school.

Six-year-0ld Gue is by far the youngest budding filmmaker to make the trip to the White House Friday. His short film explores the effects of climate change on his hometown of Bozeman, Montana.

That, of course, has long been the battle cry of every eugenicist on the planet. It's the core premise upon which the global elite's depopulation agenda has always been (and always will be) predicated.

Unfortunately I've noticed a disturbing trend among many within the loosely defined "Trump movement" to accept that premise as legitimate.

Whenever you hear someone start blabbing about world population exceeding the earth's "carrying capacity" (or something to that effect), remember this simple fact:

Every human being on the planet could fit in the state of Texas.

Since Malthusians and speculative land hoarders can't stand the sound of this fact being said aloud, allow me to repeat it just for them:

Every human being on the planet could fit in the state of Texas!

That's not a subjective opinion; it's simple mathematics.

At present the most liberal estimate of the world population is 7.5 billion people.

The landmass of Texas is 7,494,271,488,000 square feet.

If we divide the latter figure by the former, we have 999 sq ft per person -- enough space for a modest two-bedroom home.

So the problem, once again, is not that the earth itself is overpopulated, but that the people of the world are over-parasitized by the usurers, rentiers and price-gouging oligopolists who disproportionately compose the top 1%.

So the problem, once again, is not that the earth itself is overpopulated, but that the people of the world are over-parasitized by the usurers, rentiers and price-gouging oligopolists who disproportionately compose the top 1%.

Don't the people at the top understand the more the people of the world are under attack the more the population will explode. It's something embedded deep in the human psyche. 9 months after Hurricane Katrina we had a baby explosion, they were called simply Katrina babies. As a whole, the human race subconsciously knows its under attack and responds accordingly.

Logged

This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!﻿

We are all running on Gods laptop.The problem is the virus called the Illuminati. ~EvadingGrid